Official Report 979KB pdf
The final item of business this evening is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-15775, in the name of Emma Roddick, on celebrating 10 years of same-sex marriage in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I invite Emma Roddick to open the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament celebrates 10 years since the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 came into force, legalising same-sex marriage in Scotland; welcomes what it sees as the decade of love, respect and freedom of choice that has followed the implementation of the Act on 16 December 2014; understands that over 9,300 same-sex marriages have been recorded by National Records of Scotland to date; recognises what it sees as the bravery and tenacity of LGBTQI+ and equalities campaigners who brought about the conditions for change, and who, it considers, continue to advance the rights of minorities; further recognises what it sees as the ongoing international struggle for marriage equality, with, it understands, same-sex marriage being legal in only 36 states across the globe; considers that Scotland is one of the most LGBTQI+ friendly nations in Europe, with strong LGBTQI+ legal equality and the world’s first LGBT-inclusive curriculum, and notes the calls on the Scottish Parliament to stay determined in its defence of the rights and wellbeing of LGBTQI+ people in Scotland, including in the Highlands and Islands region, and to act as a progressive global exemplar in the face of what it sees as reactionary political currents.
17:47
I am grateful to all the members who join me tonight in celebrating 10 years since same-sex marriage was legislated for in Scotland by a Scottish National Party Government.
Ten years does not seem long enough ago for that to have had to happen, given that it is something so simple, but I know how difficult it was and how much courage it took for politicians in the Scottish Parliament to carry on and do the right thing, regardless of well-funded detractors and entirely normalised homophobia, lesbophobia and biphobia in much of the press and in their correspondence. Many colleagues who are sitting around me today were part of that fight, alongside campaigners, lobby groups such as LGBT Youth Scotland, and ordinary people across Scotland who just wanted to marry the person who they love.
More than 10,000 couples have since taken advantage of being able to marry. I wish them all the greatest joy in their marriages, and I wish those first couples who embraced the change in law a very happy 10th anniversary this month. I have found it very moving to hear some of their stories repeated in the past few days, and I want to particularly recognise the work of Andrew Henderson, a sports reporter at Highland News and Media. I cannot overstate the importance of the media representing real people, real relationships and the benefits of treating people equally. Too often, we see the work of a minority of journalists who are looking to generate clicks and comments through outrage rather than reporting for good.
However, Andrew Henderson’s coverage in today’s Inverness Courier of Kevin Crowe and Simon Long, the first Highland couple to take advantage of same-sex civil partnerships, is thorough and empathetic. There are reflections in the piece about the challenges that they faced in getting their partnership recognised, despite the law allowing it, the backlash that they faced from locals who wrote to the local newspaper and the response of the Catholic church, of which they are committed members.
The step forward in legislation here precipitated other changes, such as the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Episcopal Church allowing members to conduct religious ceremonies for same-sex marriages. I know how important it is to LGBTQ people of faith to be able to marry their loved one in a way that also reflects their faith, and I hope that more churches will follow that example.
I want to highlight one quotation from the piece:
“We both recall the days when the expression of our love was considered to be a crime and our sexuality a mental illness, so we decided we wanted to enter a civil partnership on the earliest date allowed by the law—which was December 21, 2005. When same sex marriage was introduced, we also wanted to be married as soon as possible. We took our civil partnership documents to the council offices and the registrar changed its status to a marriage. So our marriage certificate is actually dated 2005!”
I love that they have been able to have their civil partnership, which, to them, was a marriage in all but name, recognised in the way that they saw it. I am sure there are many out there with on-paper anniversaries that do not reflect how long they know that they have been married. We must ensure that that is not the case for couples in the future.
I say that because although we have made it to a decade of same-sex marriage equality in Scotland, progress is a constant battle, and achievements are not promised forever. What is done can be undone. There are threats to the right to marriage equality, and there are people who would see it removed, just as there are couples in Scotland who still cannot marry the person they love without official documents misrepresenting their identity—trans people without a gender recognition certificate. There are mixed-sex couples, who may be LGBTQ+, who are still unable to convert their marriage to a civil partnership. I have written to the minister and the United Kingdom Government seeking to rectify that.
What I am saying is that there is a lot more to do. When I lodged the motion, I sat and wondered for a long time how, had we not been able to get the legislation passed in 2014, the vote on the bill would go if it were held today. I could not answer that question with certainty, and nor could I be sure that the bill would actually become an act. I say that because, as an LGBTQ+ member of this Parliament, I have seen LGBTQ+ phobia. I have been personally subject to homophobia in the building, and I have heard people say things about others, and even themselves, that haunt me. Therefore, I appreciate the difficulty of the environment right now in proceeding with making the next necessary progress, despite the SNP’s clear commitment to and record on it.
This Parliament, reflecting the Parliament that allowed same-sex marriage 10 years ago, overwhelmingly supported changes to GRCs for the trans community. The bill was then blocked by the UK Government. Much of the correspondence that I received during the bill’s progress, and much of the commentary on social media, strayed from transphobia to homophobia very quickly and easily. It was a reminder of how far we still have to go.
When I was in the minister’s position, the stories about conversion practices that I was told by LGBTQ+ people were harrowing, heartbreaking and even painful to listen to and to recall. I can understand why we are struggling to make progress on trans rights, on banning conversion practices—it is sad and horrific that such torture is still being inflicted on LGBTQ+ people in Scotland—and on non-binary equality. However, that does not mean that we should not try to take any small steps that are possible and call out the behaviours and speech that seek to tear down my community and force us back into the shadows. I would rather lose trying to do the right thing than not attempt it at all. At least the LGBTQ+ community will be certain that we are on its side.
Given that the new UK Labour Government has shamefully refused to lift the Tories’ veto on the democratically reached position of this Parliament on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and, just last week, denied access to puberty blockers for trans youth, I am sure that the minister will understand why there is little confidence out there that it is a Government that might take positive steps towards banning conversion practices. Therefore, I would be grateful if the minister could expand on the Scottish Government’s current position on its plans for introducing a bill on that.
I will conclude by reiterating my deep joy for all those who have been able to marry in this country, celebrating themselves and their relationships and having all of that love recognised in law—just as mixed-sex couples could do. Having seen the often feral reactions to our very presence in public life, I often think that LGBTQ+ people are still seen as rebels for just existing; I say keep rebelling.
Happy anniversary to those who had the first weddings that were conducted after the law changed, and best wishes to the other 10,000 and to the next 10,000 couples who will make use of this important law.
We move to the open debate.
17:54
I congratulate Emma Roddick on bringing the debate to the chamber. What a different place the chamber is tonight—I well recall the absolutely packed public gallery and the celebratory atmosphere in here 10 years ago.
When I finally leave this place, the things that I will remember, and with which I will feel most proud to be associated, are things that have nothing to do with the Conservative Party. They include: the campaign for assisted dying; Trish Godman’s campaign on wheelchairs, which I remember from my first session of Parliament; Amanda Kopel’s campaign for free care for those who are suffering from dementia at an early age; the campaign for women affected by mesh; and, above all, the campaign for same-sex marriage. I am the only Tory left in the Parliament who was here, and who voted for the legislation, in 2014.
In fact, when I look across at Patrick Harvie, I think that, in all the years that we have served together in Parliament, we have had very little in common whatsoever, except that we share an interest in “Doctor Who” and in assisted dying, and we were two of the leaders of the cross-party campaign in Parliament for same-sex marriage. I remember the garden lobby being packed to the rafters with people who were here as we campaigned for that same-sex marriage legislation back in 2014. It truly was a transformative moment in the lives of so many people.
I do not want to upset Emma Roddick’s narrative, but this Parliament followed Conservative-led Westminster, which introduced same-sex marriage legislation in the rest of the country before we did so here. I observed at that time that I had many gay friends—I made the point that
“I am in the Tory party after all.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2014; c 27348.]
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose—the world goes on.
I said then that I had been happily married for 26 years, and I wanted everyone in Scotland to have that same opportunity. Now I am 36 years happily married, and more than 10,000 same-sex couples have taken the opportunity to get married. Some of those marriages will have been a success, and some will not—that is not the point. The point is that everybody has an absolutely equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of that union, and I am immensely proud of the job that we did in enabling that.
I have observed, for example, what happened with Whitelee wind farm in my constituency, and how all the opponents of that wind farm said that it would scar the landscape. Now, there is a generation who have grown up with the wind farm being there who think nothing of it. I think that it is remarkable that, 10 years on, there is a generation of older teenagers who were a little young at the time to have understood their own sexuality, but who, as they have matured, have done so in an environment in Scotland in which nobody is bothered by, or questions, their right to have the ability to choose what they want to be, where they will be and the union that they will eventually be able to have.
Challenges remain, and Emma Roddick identified some of those. My record, and my conscience, is clear on all these issues: I have voted, I think, consistently, on all such bills that have passed through the Parliament. I think all the time of friends of mine from the 1980s, some of whom died of AIDS, who did not have such opportunities and who endured an entirely different climate. Even now, I can get quite emotional thinking of some of those people. That was one of the key things that motivated me, when I came into Parliament, to be absolutely determined, as a straight person, to fight for the rights of everybody to have the same rights that I and my wife, and so many other people, had enjoyed.
The mood on that day in 2014 was genuinely celebratory. People were laughing and cheering, and applauding—they were doing all the things for which the Presiding Officer might consider suspending Parliament these days without so much as the drop of a hat—so much so that I introduced a little bit of levity. I thought, “Well, if you can’t introduce a bit of musical theatre into an occasion like this, when can you?”
This time, I conclude with these words for all the gay people, for the trans people, for the bi people—whatever. We are what we are; we are our
“own special creation”,
and
“Life’s not worth a damn,
‘Til you can”
stand up and say,
“I am what I am.”
I think that we have achieved another first there, Mr Carlaw.
17:59
It is often very difficult to follow Jackson Carlaw in any debate, and particularly in this debate, but I will try.
As a child and in my early teens, I was an altar boy; I know that this will be difficult for some colleagues to imagine, but I was told that I was quite angelic. I especially liked to serve on the altar at a wedding, not just because I often got a tenner in an envelope from the best man at the end, but because I loved watching, up close, the joy on a couple’s face when they made their vows and exchanged their rings, and were declared to be married—when two people publicly committed their love to one another for life, in front of their family and friends and God. How could I not be moved? It is a moving occasion, and I think that, even as a child, I realised how moving such an occasion was.
As I got older, however, I started to think about whether that was something that would ever happen for me, and to me. In coming out, you ask yourself many fundamental questions: “Is this normal?”; “Will things get better?”; “Will I love and be loved?”; and “Will I be happy?” In some of those moments, the world becomes quite a dark place, and in the 1980s and 1990s, and indeed in the early noughties, the world was quite a dark place for gay people. The idea of two men or two women getting married seemed unthinkable.
As I said in my first speech in the chamber, however, people lit the darkness through their campaigning and their advocacy, and through taking brave decisions in this place and in our United Kingdom Parliament. It was a Scottish Labour Government that repealed section 2A of the relevant legislation—also called section 28—and a United Kingdom Labour Government that introduced civil partnerships and adoption rights. Those were all hopeful moments on the journey to equal marriage. All were hard fought for and hard won, and were sometimes opposed or frustrated, even by those who subsequently sat in the chamber and supported equal marriage in a later period. The path to progress is never smooth.
Nonetheless, in 2014, Parliament did what that young boy in Neilston thought was impossible, and legislated for equal marriage. In doing so, it gave me part of the answer to the questions that I had asked myself while watching those newlyweds walk out of the church, hand in hand, to begin their life together.
Those questions were perhaps more fully answered for me when I met Alan, I fell in love and I asked him to marry me. When we stood there on 14 August 2021, I was able to reflect on how far we had come and the fact that we stood on the shoulders of all those people who made it possible, but also to reflect on all those who lived in secret and experienced the pain of passing without ever having their love recognised in law and with their families and friends. We raised a glass to all those people at what was—I must say—quite a party.
As we have heard, 10 years on from that moment in the chamber, there are thousands of people who have married, as I have; thousands of committed relationships with thousands of happy moments and thousands of times of holding each other in times of sadness—and the odd fight, I dare say. Thousands of our fellow citizens have had their love and commitment recognised as equal before the law, and that is simple, yet incredible.
We know that there are still opponents and that, in some ways, we are going backwards. We know that some people still think that faith and being LGBT+ are incompatible, and that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. People often ask if that makes me angry, and more often than not, I say that it does not make me angry—it makes me sad. It makes me sad that someone could look at 10 years of equal marriage and be unable to see the immense joy that those rights have brought for people who love one another and to our families and our friends.
We are not going back, because this Parliament has built a sure foundation, and there will always be people to stand here and fight for it.
That sentiment is perhaps better summarised by the great Seamus Heaney, whose words featured at our wedding:
Masons, when they start upon a building,
Are careful to test out the scaffolding;
Make sure that planks won’t slip at busy points,
Secure all ladders, tighten bolted joints.
And yet all this comes down when the job’s done
Showing off walls of sure and solid stone.
So if, my dear, there sometimes seem to be
Old bridges breaking between you and me
Never fear. We may let the scaffolds fall
Confident that we have built our wall.
18:04
It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this landmark debate celebrating the 10th anniversary of the passage of the legislation on same-sex marriage. I thank my colleague Emma Roddick for bringing it to the chamber, and for her customarily passionate speech. I also thank Paul O’Kane for making such a lovely personal speech.
The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 legalised same-sex marriage in Scotland, with the law coming into effect on 16 December, and the first same-sex marriage ceremony taking place on hogmanay the same year. The legislation was passed two years before I was elected, and it is definitely a huge regret for me that I was not in the chamber that day to celebrate the passing of that joyous legislation. I am really quite jealous of Jackson Carlaw having been here to experience that.
I understand that campaigners stood up in the gallery and applauded, against the rules of the chamber, and I am pretty sure that more than a few tears were shed, too. I would love to have been at the first same-sex marriage ceremony that took place on hogmanay that year—what a celebration that must have been. Since 2014, more than 10,000 same-sex couples have married in Scotland. That is a lot of happy people who are now able to live and love as they choose.
There can be few of us who do not know people, or who do not have family members, in same-sex marriages. As ever, though, we cannot take equality for granted. We must stop treating same-sex relationships as being somehow different, special or exceptional. They are most certainly not—they simply reflect the make-up of our diverse society.
My office manager and his husband will have been married 10 years this February—they did not waste any time in tying the knot after the legislation was passed. They did it, in fact, in a cave in Iceland, and those happy memories of an amazing day are remembered by many of their guests. Now, having adopted two siblings as babies, they are living life as one happy—if, at times, chaotic—family. You could not hope to see happier children or a more contented family.
The bill that was passed 10 years ago is proof that legislation can enhance and improve society at every level, but—as with all issues concerning inclusivity and what can be termed by some as “moral issues”—it was not easy to get it passed. That is why so much credit must go to the campaigners who gave so much of their time and energy over the decades leading up to 2014, and to those who are still campaigning to ensure inclusivity for all in a diverse modern Scotland. They are the trailblazers to whom future generations will owe so much.
To be able to live and love freely, regardless of sexual orientation, is fundamental to a civilised society. Thankfully, young people who are growing up today do not see the stigma that existed for many people of my generation. We must consign discrimination of every kind—sexual, gender, race, disability and more—to the dustbin. Scotland is a tolerant and inclusive society, and any form of discrimination must be called out by each and every one of us.
To all the happy couples out there who have benefited from this decade-old legislation, I say this: “Thank you for being true to yourselves and for committing to living your life as you wish, with the love of your life. You have paved the way to happiness for future generations.”
18:07
I thank Emma Roddick for lodging her motion and for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I whole-heartedly agree that the introduction of same-sex marriage in Scotland is a matter for enthusiastic celebration, but I am not sure that a characterisation of the past decade as one
“of love, respect and freedom of choice”
really tells the whole story. Equal marriage has, to some extent, been the low-hanging fruit of equality—reform with which we feel comfortable, and which extends our families and communities, gives us more occasions of festivity and provides extra ballast to the institution of marriage. However, we are misremembering if we think that it was easy, and Emma Roddick is right to highlight the bravery and tenacity of the early activists.
Looking back at the debates in the Parliament, I see some of the same tropes that we have heard recently in relation to the rights of transgender people—about supposed harms to children, none of which have materialised; about regressive beliefs being worthy of respect; and about redefinition of words, whether the word is “marriage” or “woman”, as if language were not perpetually evolving. It is only in retrospect that reform seems inevitable.
Marriage is of deep importance to many people, carrying, as it does, such a rich history of tradition and romance, and of religious and secular connotation, but that is not what everyone wants. In England and Wales, married couples for whom civil partnership is a better reflection of their personal values can convert their marriage to a civil partnership. In Scotland, they still cannot—the decade of freedom of choice has not delivered for them.
I understand that the previous Secretary of State for Scotland expressed his agreement in principle to the section 104 order that would be needed to bring about that change. Unfortunately, the present Labour incumbent has not yet replied to the cabinet secretary, or to my colleague Ariane Burgess MSP, both of whom have written to him on that. Perhaps members here this evening could give him a little nudge.
Emma Roddick’s motion claims that
“Scotland is one of the most LGBTQI+ friendly nations in Europe”.
I want to agree, but I really do not know whether that is true. Yes, we have legal equality and an inclusive school curriculum, but real-life experiences, especially of young people and especially of transgender people, give us little on which to congratulate ourselves.
Recent reports from LGBT Youth Scotland, compared with those of five years earlier, show significant declines in the number of young LGBTQIA+ people who believe that Scotland is a good place for them to live. Those in rural areas are particularly unlikely to feel valued or welcomed, while many feel unsafe in, or unsupported by, healthcare services. Of course, Wes Streeting’s devastating announcement last week, which was made with neither evidence nor compassion, will have compounded those experiences of rejection and exclusion.
A recent project with LGBTQIA+ young people in the east of Scotland asked them to explore their rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to identify those that are most relevant to their lives but are not being fulfilled. The right to non-discrimination, the right to be listened to, the right to education, and the right to protection from violence, abuse and neglect are all being breached for a substantial number of our young people. That is a matter of deep collective shame, and it underscores the urgent need for action, including a comprehensive ban on conversion practices.
Emma Roddick asked us to stay determined. Absolutely—but I would say more. If we are truly to honour the achievement of 2014, we must discover new wellsprings of courage, compassion, solidarity and will.
18:12
I thank Emma Roddick for allowing us to have this debate. It is a great pleasure to take part in it.
My goodness! I thought that Jackson Carlaw was about to sing at the end of his speech. Thankfully, he did not. I have never said this publicly in the chamber, so I would like to thank him for what I describe as his unwavering support of the LGBT community during his time in Parliament. I know that he will get many of the same messages and emails that I get regarding some of the positions that he has taken on votes in Parliament. I understand how those make me feel, and I can only imagine that the same will be true for him. It is worth putting those thanks on the record.
I also want to start by saying something controversial, which is that I do not think that there is any such thing as “gay” marriage; it is just marriage. It is marriage between two people who presumably love each other and want their relationship to be recognised in the eyes of the law, and who sometimes just happen to be of the same sex—because marriage is as symbolic as it is legal. I say that as someone who is not married. Perhaps, one day: you never know.
We should reflect on the fact that the story of equal marriage in Scotland is conjoined with the struggle for wider LGBT rights. From right back to the two men who first solemnised their marriage in Minnesota in 1971, it took Scotland until December 2014 to come to the same conclusion. As was pointed out, England and Wales did so some nine months earlier. Ontario—my other family home—did so in 2003, and some five years ago Taiwan became the first country in Asia to do the same. It is soon to be joined by Thailand, next year, which is good. Even Spain and Greece have embraced equal marriage, and that is in the face of fierce opposition from the church and from far-right politics.
Back in 2014, Scotland was plunged into division around its constitution, but it was equally plunged into division on the issue of equal marriage. I was not here then, but I recall something similar, because I was in a Dublin hotel room on the night on which Ireland held its referendum on equal marriage, in May 2015. I remember that vividly, because I was walking through the streets of Dublin, which were awash with campaigners on both sides of the argument, and I chatted equally with those who were carrying rainbow flags and those who were carrying placards that said that God loved me no matter what. It was those whom I encountered who told me that I was abnormal, or an abomination in the eyes of God, with whom I had a problem. That night, the results came through, and it was emotional—I could feel it—because, despite the opinion polls saying that 70 per cent of the population was in favour, you never know until you know.
I suspect that the same would be true in Scotland of that night 10 years ago, which we have heard so much about. From the petition from Nick Henderson in 2009 right through to 2014 when it became law, 77,500 people responded to the public consultation on equal marriage. Of course, many were opposed—but many of those came from outside Scotland or participated only through use of a postcard to express their opposition. At the same time, opinion polls were saying that 68 per cent of the population were in support.
I am glad that the Parliament did the right thing and I am sorry that most of the opposition to gay marriage came from the Conservative benches; however, it also existed in the SNP and Scottish Labour.
We could argue that those were very different times, but were they? A generation of young Scots will grow up knowing that they can marry whomever they choose to love, on the back of those struggles, because times do change. If the Church of Scotland can change its view on equal marriage, I hope that anyone can.
Back in 2014, Ruth Davidson was at the helm on our benches—the same Ruth Davidson who asked me to become a Scottish Conservative candidate despite my many reservations about being an out gay man in public life. In my view, she served as a role model showing that barriers could be broken down, both within my party and in wider Scottish politics. She reassured me that I could be fiscally and economically Conservative, but could also hold true to my values of modernity, inclusion and liberalism, which drove my political tenets.
That relationship has been put publicly to the test in recent years, and I wonder what Ms Davidson would think now of some of the narrative that emanates from this place, because LGBT equality often feels like anything but—anything but an acronym about equals or equal ambitions. I would be lying if I did not express my fear today that we in Scotland reached peak equality some years ago, because debate is now confrontational, difficult and regressive on so many levels.
At the end of the day, marriage is all about love, and too much air time is given to language that fuels division, not love. Today’s debate will make no headlines whatsoever, because it fuels no hatred in a world that is consumed by short-form content of anger and othering—because the victories of this Parliament of 10 years ago, which we mark today, are the hallmarks of why the Parliament was set up in the first place: to treat every Scot as a human being who is capable of loving and of being loved. If I ever get married, all members will be welcome, and it might very well be a gay marriage after all.
Patrick Harvie is the final speaker in the open debate.
18:17
Like others, I am grateful to Emma Roddick for giving us the opportunity to debate the motion. I have to admit that I am perhaps showing my age, as I will have to put my remarks in a slightly longer context than just those 10 years. I cannot help thinking back to before devolution, because we have a bit of an easier story to tell of our history since then. Before devolution, Scotland had a nasty story to tell of itself—of being a more socially conservative part of the UK in many ways, in which bishops wielded block votes and in which the queer community had venues in basements and physically hid under the streets. That story of Scotland as a more socially conservative place was always false, in my view, but it was a powerful story and, before devolution, some of the queer community genuinely had deep anxiety about what a Scottish Parliament would do with our rights and with the legislation that affected our lives. We did not know.
In those early days, there was that incredibly toxic and high-profile homophobic campaign by, among others, Brian Souter, the head of the Catholic church and the Daily Record: “Keep the clause” and “Protect our children”. That nasty campaign characterised the first few years.
At one point in her speech, Emma Roddick asked what would have happened if the equal marriage vote had gone the other way. I have often wondered what would have happened if equality had not won out in those early years of devolution and if the attempt to create a religious far right in this country had been successful. Equality did win. It was tough getting there, but equality did win through. Since then, we have had mixed-sex civil partnership, which was great progress at a practical level, but certain voices were still allowed to falsely present it as a second-class status, and that needed to be dealt with.
There was an immense amount of hard work by campaigners on those issues, and a dozen other major campaigns laid the groundwork that eventually made it possible for the Scottish Parliament to vote on equal marriage, but always against opposition from the usual homophobic voices as well as from some from the newer religious far-right organisations from the US that have started to base themselves in this country.
All through that, there has been this context in politics that I have regularly tried to challenge, without much success: the treatment of queer people’s human rights as a special matter of conscience. If an MSP from any political party wanted to vote against allowing mixed-race marriage, for example, we would call them out as a racist, and any political party would expel them and be ashamed of them. We do not have that level of principle when it comes to queer people’s human rights. Most political parties believe that it is okay to vote for homophobic laws because such rights are a special matter of conscience, and that needs to be challenged.
Throughout the debate on equal marriage, we had to endure debates on amendments that explicitly sought to frame same-sex relationships as less valid or even to frame LGBTQ people as a threat to others. That was not a new idea and not a new trope, but it was expressed explicitly in the chamber. Despite that, equality won through. It was tough going to get there, but equality won through with one of the biggest majorities of any Parliament voting on the issue anywhere in the world at that point.
Others have mentioned how, in that moment, the Presiding Officer had the flexibility not to enforce the no-applause rule as the campaigners in the gallery stood up and applauded when the vote was read out and the MSPs stood up and faced them back and applauded them. That symbolised what the campaigners for the Parliament had wanted—a Parliament that shares power with the people.
Since then, despite many thousands of couples having celebrated their special day with friends and families—and maybe, if we are lucky, some of them even living happily ever after—we have seen the rebirth and reboot of homophobia, and especially transphobia, on a scale that goes beyond even the nightmare days of the 1980s and 1990s, because it is boosted so powerfully by social media, including quite deliberately by the owner of X, who has sought to deliberately turn that space into one in which hate speech is actively promoted and monetised.
Presiding Officer, we have a great deal to celebrate about the work that was done to allow that vote and those wonderful marriage ceremonies to take place. However, we need to be clear eyed not just about the fact that we have further to go, but about the fact that we have a hill to climb in the face of the new threats that are being brought to us, including by those who have shamefully used this chamber to attack the idea of LGBT-inclusive education in schools in Scotland.
18:23
It is a real privilege to speak in tonight’s debate to mark 10 years of same-sex marriage in Scotland. I thank Emma Roddick for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I note the respectful tone that has been adopted by all contributors from across the chamber tonight.
There was a long and careful process to improve equality and to respect the rights and views of those who opposed same-sex marriage or had concerns about it. In particular, we recognised and put in place protections for religious bodies and celebrants who fundamentally disagreed with same-sex marriage because of their religious convictions, while other religious and belief bodies strongly supported same-sex marriage and wished to take part. Following their own careful deliberations, more bodies have chosen to opt in.
The Scottish Government consulted twice—once on the principles and once on a draft bill. The bill was passed on 4 February 2014, which was an emotional day. Once the bill was enacted, National Records of Scotland made a number of operational changes, including information technology changes. I pay tribute to NRS and local authority registrars for the work that they carried out at the time, which was done at pace.
In 2014, the Scottish Government worked on secondary legislation, which included working closely with the UK Government to promote an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998. Among other things, that amended the Equality Act 2010 to protect celebrants who did not wish to take part in same-sex marriage ceremonies. Those protections have stood the test of time.
The first same-sex marriages in Scotland took place in December 2014. As the motion says, same-sex marriages have been a success. Since 2014, more than 10,000 couples have entered into a same-sex marriage. The number is higher than the one mentioned in the motion because that figure includes only the first three quarters of 2024.
Same-sex marriage has become an established part of society, and there are now more countries that take part in and recognise same-sex marriage. However, as the motion also says, there is still much to do to achieve equality here, in Scotland, and world wide. In 2019, we pardoned all men with convictions for same-sex sexual activity that is now legal, but, in some countries, consensual sexual activity between couples of the same sex remains illegal. Scotland needs to show that we are, as the motion says, an exemplar in equality.
Changes can be made to civil law as well as to criminal law in order to further equality. The 2014 act was a major step in civil law to recognise equality for LGBTQI+ people. Emma Roddick asked for an update on the position on ending conversion practices. I reaffirm that conversion practices are abusive and harmful and that no one should be coerced into changing or suppressing their sexual orientation or gender identity. We continue to work with the UK Government to explore a complementary approach. We are in the early stages of that work, following a detailed consultation, the responses to which will be published in due course. The Scottish Government continues to work at pace to ensure that comprehensive and effective legislation is ready to be introduced to Parliament, if that is required.
Jackson Carlaw made his contribution with his usual eloquence, but Gloria Gaynor said it first when she sang the words
“I am what I am.”
I thank Paul O’Kane for sharing his experiences and for highlighting the joy and love that have been brought to so many people through equal marriage.
Rona Mackay, by recounting and describing some joyous ceremonies, gave us all wedding invitation envy. I thank her for paying tribute to all the campaigners for equal marriage, and I add my thanks to them for paving the way for all to live and love.
Maggie Chapman was right to highlight the current situation regarding legislation on converting marriages to civil partnerships. She is aware that making that option available in Scotland would involve a Scottish statutory instrument being laid in this Parliament and an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 being laid at Westminster. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice has written to the Secretary of State for Scotland on that issue, and I urge members to take up Maggie Chapman’s suggestion to give the secretary of state a wee nudge in that direction.
Patrick Harvie reminded us of pre-devolution times, which were such dark times for LGBTQI+ communities. I want to reassure him that this Government believes in human rights for all and will continue to pursue equality for all. I am proud of the work that was carried out 10 years ago to reform civil law to introduce same-sex marriage. I looked back at the stage 1 debate on the bill, on 20 November 2013. Kevin Stewart, who signed today’s motion, said that voting for the bill would give LGBT people
“the right to share the happiness and love and the trials and tribulations of marriage.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2013; c 24658.]
Jamie Greene referred to the counsel that he received from Ruth Davidson. In that debate, Ruth Davidson said:
“I want that right to extend to not just me but the thousands of people across Scotland who are told that the law says no and that they cannot marry the love of their life. They are not allowed and, unless we change the law, they will never be allowed.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2013; c 24644-24645.]
This Parliament did change the law, same-sex marriage was introduced and it has brought happiness to thousands of couples. I welcome this celebration, and I commend the motion.
Meeting closed at 18:31.Air ais
Decision Time